On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:42:57 -0800, Dawlish wrote:

On Dec 11, 8:01Â*am, Bill Ward wrote:

Failure to understand is not a credible rebuttal.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill, I could say exactly the same. You feel that you are the only one
that really understands and you show that through your occasional
writings in this newsgroup. Over the last century so many physicists
have looked at this and the basic physics have not changed. CO2 absorbs
IR radiation - OK, a complex spectrum (though not as complex as H2O) -
but it absorbs energy, re-radiating it, in all directions, to warm the
atmosphere. You seem to have a different solution and you'd like to
dismiss anyone who doesn't talk the same language as you do.

OK, all you need to do is point out the errors in my explanation. Using
the language of physics makes it easier to understand, but you can
explain your position however you want. The concepts involved, however,
are not mine alone. They describe well-known principles of physics, and
you either need to accept them, or show why they're wrong.

I can't be an expert on everything and I don't claim to be. Nor can
anyone else. Nor are you. I read papers by others better qualified than
me. You do too. However, I am good at assessing probablilities and
likelihoods. The probability of you being correct and almost all other
scientists that have been involved in atmospheric physics being wrong is
highly unlikely.

The first part of your above paragraph disqualifies the second part. How
can you assign probabilities to things you don't understand? Why should
anyone care what you think if you can't explain why you think it? Appeal
to authority is not thinking, it is an excuse for not understanding.

If you can't see that, it shows that you are a long way
from having any kind of understanding of probability. Hence, it is
highly likely that you are wrong and thus highly likely that the view
held by the vast majority is correct. (Never, ever, would I call your
views outright wrong, though the likelihood is that they are).

So exactly why should I care what you think? You seem to avoid any
thinking that would enable you to understand what I'm saying. If you're
not even going to try, why should I waste my time on you?

I'm still not seeing any decent explanation of why the atmosphere is not
colder, given that the oft-quoted "natural cycles" are presently in a
state which ought to mean that it should *be* colder at present and not
the last 6 months sitting on the record as being extremely warm compared
to the last 130 years (and remember, my original analysis of monthly
temps went back 5 years - 30% of months being in the top 2 warmest in
180 years - and I could extend that back 30-50 years, and show similar
results - that's why the graph of temp against time curves upwards).

If you ever get to a point where you can present a coherent, logical
explanation of your hypothesis, let us know. Until then, this may help:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html